Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 vict0988 wrote:

bat702 wrote:
is competitive 40k getting to the point where we are going to need hotfixes/patches to the rules/datasheets to keep the 40k competitive scene fresh and fun.

What do you call the AdMech and Drukhari nerfs? Hotfixes to prevent the game from becoming more or less just those two factions which would obviously become stale very quickly.

The Drukhari nerfs were interesting because other than tournament games they didn't change anything. +10 points for raiders was correct but also not significant, typically a +20/30 points increase on a 2000 points list. In real life no one played DT wracks with liquifier spam and succubus with razorflails since wracks are utterly expensive and very few people actually own more than 5-10 of them, let alone that many models with the actual flamer and the succubus with that loadout is only available through proxy or conversion.

The Drukhari fix was completely oriented to overly competitive gaming, for most of the playerbase there has never been a fix for Drukhari. And for a good reason, they aren't that oppressive outside that couple of unintentional gimmicks that most of the players weren't using anyway.

 Sim-Life wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
They do, you just don't realise it.

Please elaborate.

Aside from what Karol has already mentioned about tournament results effecting the buffs/nerfs/points adjustments effecting everyone, the whole edition in centred around legalese systems involving keywords and esoteric equipment choices in order to appeal to the tournament crowds. Those guys LOVE very specific linguistics in their rules and set scenarios and it spills over into the casual arena whether you like it or not.

Then you need to find more casual minded people. Sorry to say that the vast majority of people like rules and structure to the games they play.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
They do, you just don't realise it.

Please elaborate.

Aside from what Karol has already mentioned about tournament results effecting the buffs/nerfs/points adjustments effecting everyone, the whole edition in centred around legalese systems involving keywords and esoteric equipment choices in order to appeal to the tournament crowds. Those guys LOVE very specific linguistics in their rules and set scenarios and it spills over into the casual arena whether you like it or not.

Then you need to find more casual minded people. Sorry to say that the vast majority of people like rules and structure to the games they play.

If I coul groan incredibly loudly in a forum post I would right now.

Well it is what it is. Are there people around the globe who play football and not keep score? Probably, are they equal or close in numbers to those that keep the scores? Of course not.

If rules support didn't matter, then the army with the best one wouldn't be the best selling one. And the unit with the better rules wouldn't be best sellers. In fact you shouldn't have something like a best seller at all .

40k has always been a game played on multiple levels. Balance has always sucked the rules have always been prone to abuse. The trick is to find a group of like minded people to play with.

People like to include units in their list for a number of reasons. They like the model, it’s the last things they painted, they read about it in a BL book, or used it in a Dawn of War. If everyone includes some “fun” units instead of just top meta builds you still get fun, close, games. And people get to play with the stuff they like.

You run into issues where some people want to play tournament prep lists, and other people fluffy fun lists. Tournament guy doesn’t get the test his list needs, puppy doesn't like getting kicked. No fun had.

Sometimes this requires some pre-game negotiation. Or miscommunication about how tight you are going to tune your list.

This is not a judgement against tournament/casual play. ALL ways of play are valid. You just need to find the right group. What normal is for your group is not necessarily universally true. Some people live in cut thought metas, others where more then one of a non-troop pick is spamming.

It’s all good as long as people enjoy it.

 Nevelon wrote:
The trick is to find a group of like minded people to play with.

Thats not a trick, thats a luxury afforded to people who live in densely populated areas.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
The trick is to find a group of like minded people to play with.

Thats not a trick, thats a luxury afforded to people who live in densely populated areas.

And that’s fair.

If you do have a group that’s not into the game the same way you are, that kind of sucks. You can try to convince them to try things your way, try their way yourself, of find enjoyment in other aspects of the hobby and hope for better days ahead. Or probably other things.

I’ve had drought years where I barely got any games in due to a lack of a FLGS. Sucked, but I painted, followed the hobby online, and got in 2-3 games a year.

True and when the cost of an army is considered high locally, people are not going to be willing to risk buying a bad army or bad units in general. This leaves out more or less new player, and with veterans of +1 edition, they really have to want to play a weaker army against you, otherwise they will play what works and isn't unfun to play with.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
The trick is to find a group of like minded people to play with.

Thats not a trick, thats a luxury afforded to people who live in densely populated areas.

The other "trick" is just to stop playing. I did that in 7th when the game stopped being fun and started being a waste of my time that made me angry and annoyed. After every game I would rage to people how crappy the game was and how it wasn't any fun and how it got worse with every release. Eventually I realized that all the time I was investing simply wasn't worth it.
And it was not a break or a temporary thing, I absolutely planned to never play a single game of ever 40k again, and even sold my gaming table, terrain and army, though the guy who bought my orks never came to pick them up. Lucky me, I guess?

You are supposed to enjoy your hobby time, not to dread it. From your posts I gather that you have exhausted all possible options of making wargaming work for you. I tried similar things during 7th, didn't work for me either, so I can relate.
If there is no fun to be had in wargaming for you where you live, do not play wargames. Your time is too valuable for that.
And don't fall for the sunk cost fallacy that will probably be brought up in response to this post. First of all, all that plastic crack is going nowhere. The models can endure years in a box, can be taken out and will the very same as you've left them. When 8th hit and I wanted to give it a try, I literally just brought the army case that held the orks from my last game of 7th and played that. If you find you will never need those things again later, you can still sell most miniatures for close to what you paid for them, especially when they are painted or magnetized. Or maybe you are just burnt out with 40k and will regain interest like I did?
Second, you did clearly get a lot of enjoyment from those things, so you didn't "sink" that money. Quite the opposite, if you stay in a hobby you hate, you will continue to lose time and money and will get nothing for it.

Not bathing in the giant whirlpool of negativity that dakka has become on a daily basis might also help with enjoying the game more.

Sim-Life wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
The trick is to find a group of like minded people to play with.

Thats not a trick, thats a luxury afforded to people who live in densely populated areas.

I can attest. Unless you desire to play competitively, it is in fact a luxury.

But more on topic... GW did 'hot fixes' for 8th edition with annual Chapter Approved updates. It had a lot of good aspects to it, but only for players who had been playing since the initial release of 8th edition. Unfortunately, it caused a lot of confusion for anyone who entered the game after the first year and confused players who didn't keep up with releases. The 'hot fixes' created rules fragmentation. A lot of players didn't know what the current rules were or got confused on what rules applied to Matched Play vs. Organized Play. Most didn't (still don't) even know that these were in fact two different modes of play. It was a constant issue that needed dealt with.

The worst was having to deal with TO's who didn't know what was correct (i.e. what was a core rule vs. a mission specific rule). The arguments I had to endure with TO's who didn't know the rules because of 'hot fixes'; not a fun time.

The moment GW listens to the competitive crowd exclusively will be the death of 40K. I have no data to support this, but it seems like the amount of tournament players to regular players is a 1:10 ratio. They are the minority. The vocal minority. To have them drive the direction of 40K development will kill the game.

Comparing 40K to a video game that requires constantly rotating meta to keep things "fresh" is a fancy way to change the goalposts for a broken game.

 Tamwulf wrote:
The moment GW listens to the competitive crowd exclusively will be the death of 40K. I have no data to support this, but it seems like the amount of tournament players to regular players is a 1:10 ratio. They are the minority. The vocal minority. To have them drive the direction of 40K development will kill the game.

Comparing 40K to a video game that requires constantly rotating meta to keep things "fresh" is a fancy way to change the goalposts for a broken game.

Newsflash. We're already there, this is already happening.

Mike Brandt = The new Matt Ward.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
The trick is to find a group of like minded people to play with.

Thats not a trick, thats a luxury afforded to people who live in densely populated areas.

Not bathing in the giant whirlpool of negativity that dakka has become on a daily basis might also help with enjoying the game more.

I come to Dakka to bitch in order to keep it off my group chat.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
The trick is to find a group of like minded people to play with.

Thats not a trick, thats a luxury afforded to people who live in densely populated areas.

Even then. The fringes of moderately dense areas are usually better. Most major cities I've lived in have been wastelands for games, with the occasional pocket somewhere, and odds are they don't want other people coming in and 'ruining' things.

The idea that a group (or even your group) is going to play 100% 'your way' is an absurd fantasy, and people would be better off not slinging it around.

Voss wrote:
The idea that a group (or even your group) is going to play 100% 'your way' is an absurd fantasy, and people would be better off not slinging it around.

Not 100%, but you can find a middle ground and compromise. It is not something that works everywhere, but you can curate your local scene.

I find it almost impossible to curate your local scene. If you're a fresh faced member, unless you're very personable (which I am not) the group will prefer not to have you to accomodating you.

a_typical_hero wrote:

Voss wrote:
The idea that a group (or even your group) is going to play 100% 'your way' is an absurd fantasy, and people would be better off not slinging it around.

Not 100%, but you can find a middle ground and compromise. It is not something that works everywhere, but you can curate your local scene.

In my experience the compromise is almost always: 'play the game as written, matched play. Stop being a problem'

Yeah, it is probably not going to work if you come into a close group and the first thing you say is "your game is flawed, let's use some rules I found online instead".

I think that is something you can do after becoming good acquaintances and then if you ask single persons to try out something new for once. If they like it, you got someone that the group knows for longer and who is backing your idea.

Anyway, it is going to be difficult.

Sometimes you need to make compromises.

I forget if it was 6th or 7th, but at some high point of Eldar cheese. I wanted to take my pointy-eared gits out for a game, but have fun and not torque off my opponent. My list is very bike heavy (getting mud on your boots is for lesser races) but I didn’t go full scatbike. I keep to the old 1-in-3 for gun upgrades. Still playing within the rules. Nothing forces you to turn your list up to 11.

But I’ve done my share of games vs. tournament lists. Even played in locals. Not my favorite format, but a good way to ensure 3 games on a Saturday. My A-game might not be the best, but I can at least make a good showing at it, despite my preference for casual play.

The fundamental problem with keeping the 40k meta 'fresh' is that your talking about armies worth 100's of dollars. Keeping things fresh sounds great until you realize it means spending a few 100 bucks every few months to buy whatever is 'fresh' now.

It works in a f2p moba. Not an expensive hobby like Warhammer.

 Ordana wrote:
The fundamental problem with keeping the 40k meta 'fresh' is that your talking about armies worth 100's of dollars. Keeping things fresh sounds great until you realize it means spending a few 100 bucks every few months to buy whatever is 'fresh' now.

It works in a f2p moba. Not an expensive hobby like Warhammer.

I mean, the goal (at least in my mind) should be to have every option be viable. Not in every list, but every unit should have a place SOMEWHERE.

While top-level tournament players might have to tweak and optimize and refine and pay out the butt for new models to get that 3% edge over the competition, I'd love a game where if you have, say, a 3,000 point collection of an army, you can build a quality 2,000 point list with some variety in playstyle, and have a chance in every game.

I am afraid to ask the question, but was there ever a time in history of w40k, where a large chunk of all armies had a large part of their datasheets as valid options?

As the collection goes, it does seem to work in some way. If you have every unit for marines, and some in multiples. Then you are not suddenly suprised by rise of MM attack bikes or eliminators or centurions falling out of grace.

If you find you will never need those things again later, you can still sell most miniatures for close to what you paid for them, especially when they are painted or magnetized. Or maybe you are just burnt out with 40k and will regain interest like I did?

that is interesting to hear. Here painted automaticlly lowers the cost of an army, As soon as something is taken out of the box it becomes 50-60% store price. Getting rid of an army at full price seems like a nice thing to have. A large chunk of people not painting their armies in the past here, came from the fact that people didn't want to lower the resell value of their army, if they were to drop it before finishing.

Karol wrote:
I am afraid to ask the question, but was there ever a time in history of w40k, where a large chunk of all armies had a large part of their datasheets as valid options?

As the collection goes, it does seem to work in some way. If you have every unit for marines, and some in multiples. Then you are not suddenly suprised by rise of MM attack bikes or eliminators or centurions falling out of grace.

If you find you will never need those things again later, you can still sell most miniatures for close to what you paid for them, especially when they are painted or magnetized. Or maybe you are just burnt out with 40k and will regain interest like I did?

that is interesting to hear. Here painted automaticlly lowers the cost of an army, As soon as something is taken out of the box it becomes 50-60% store price. Getting rid of an army at full price seems like a nice thing to have. A large chunk of people not painting their armies in the past here, came from the fact that people didn't want to lower the resell value of their army, if they were to drop it before finishing.

Depends what you mean by valid.

Karol wrote:
I am afraid to ask the question, but was there ever a time in history of w40k, where a large chunk of all armies had a large part of their datasheets as valid options?

As the collection goes, it does seem to work in some way. If you have every unit for marines, and some in multiples. Then you are not suddenly suprised by rise of MM attack bikes or eliminators or centurions falling out of grace.

Some armies have better internal balance then others. But if you playing on a very competitive level, you are only using the top cream of your codex, and the rest is irrelevant. And that will shift radically between editions. Eldar are a great example of that. They have been one of the to; dogs in almost every edition, but what gets them there shifts, often with no overlap from what was previously the meta pick. One day it’s serpent spam and scatbikes, next shining spears and crimson hunters.

You chase the meta long enough, you end up with the whole codex.

Similar to what SM HQ to take. They have all had their moments in the sun.

Imho 9th dexes are doing a good job of having more valid options than the past editions.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Imho 9th dexes are doing a good job of having more valid options than the past editions.

Internal balance in the new codex is probably at its best levels in the history of 40k, despite the fact that most of the books have tons of datasheets. Codexes are also quite externally balanced as well. So yeah, definitely a great job so far, I agree.

 Blackie wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
Imho 9th dexes are doing a good job of having more valid options than the past editions.

Internal balance in the new codex is probably at its best levels in the history of 40k, despite the fact that most of the books have tons of datasheets. Codexes are also quite externally balanced as well. So yeah, definitely a great job so far, I agree.

*cough* Drukhari and AdMech *cough*. Worse than 8th and would be as bad as 7th if not for errata.

But it is not armies. DG didn't change that much. GK practically play with the same 3 units they spamed at the start of 8th ed. Marines of various kinds actually got worse, then they were in 8th ed.

Can't really say about mech as I don't have their codex and the players I face here are very casual oriented, but drukhari? Really?

Internally their codex is awesome, with very few units that are unplayable and externally they're certainly strong but they don't bully anyone. They had a broken tournament list built around spamming DT liq guns, and based on an unintentional combo, but it's long gone. Other than that they've always been manageable.

Are ad mech really stomping everyone? Espcially without skewing?

 vict0988 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
Imho 9th dexes are doing a good job of having more valid options than the past editions.

Internal balance in the new codex is probably at its best levels in the history of 40k, despite the fact that most of the books have tons of datasheets. Codexes are also quite externally balanced as well. So yeah, definitely a great job so far, I agree.

*cough* Drukhari and AdMech *cough*. Worse than 8th and would be as bad as 7th if not for errata.

1) He said "Internal Balance". Your internal balance is not affected by drukhari and admech.
2) Since we have vast statistics for both 8th and 9th, we know as a hard fact that there was only a short time period during 8th when its balance was comparable to how it is now in 9th.
3) No one plays the game without errata.